I think these options make a lot of questionable, perhaps false, assumptions about SM

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

What do you see as the effects or observations for you personally the first 2 years? While some of these options are perhaps presumptuous about socialized medicine (SM), and it’s not likely we would plunge so directly into it as to entirely replace at once our current capitalist system, this question assumes such, and one option (among multiple answers) provides for this thought.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

As far as safety is concerned, universal health care does not mean that employers would get off the hook for workplace injuries. If we adopted a Canadian style system, the workplace insurance would pay first.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Here's another result of SM. Doctors will perform all kinds of unnecessary proceedures for minor ailments to rake in more money. After all, "SM" is paying for it.

I used to work billing in a hospital. We already have this problem with medicare and medicaid, and SM would only make it worse.

Click to expand...

It depends on how far we go to SM. If we adopt the British system, that might not necessarily be the case. Doctors as employees of the government would undoubtedly be compared to each other in terms of the use of resources. Even if we adopted an insurance-based approach, you can bet that the government would make greater use of utilization review.

Also, it would be possible to change the compensation schemes. The current system already tends toward unnecessary procedures because of profit and defensive medicine.

Of course, doctors and hospitals currently have to milk every dime they can get out of the insured patients to offset the costs of treating the uninsured. With universal health care, that wouldn't be as big of an issue.

I also worked in a hospital. The casuistry that the social workers employed to make sure that the hospital got paid would make biblical Pharisees blush.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Businesses would be more competitive internationally because they wouldn't have to foot the bill of health insurance for their employees.

Small businesses would be more able to attract good workers from larger corporations because they wouldn't have the disadvantage of no or inferior health coverage.

People with health problems will be more able to start their own businesses without fear of being unable to attain health coverage, thereby creating jobs and encouraging new economic development.

I support universal health care because I think it's the right thing to do morally and because I think it's the right thing to do economically. We are eating up our GDP in health costs while hindering economic innovation.

The ONLY ones who benefit from this arrangement are the insurance companies and possibly doctors. Hospitals don't. They have to bear the cost of the uninsured. Businesses don't. They have to bear the skyrocketing costs of health coverage. Why on earth are we trying to maintain this destructive system for the sake of the "free market" when it only makes all businesses other than insurance companies less competitive?

ExpandCollapse

Banned

Here's another result of SM. Doctors will perform all kinds of unnecessary proceedures for minor ailments to rake in more money. After all, "SM" is paying for it.

I used to work billing in a hospital. We already have this problem with medicare and medicaid, and SM would only make it worse.

Click to expand...

I currently work in a hospital and although there is room for error and I am sure there are people that pad the bill, it's not a complete run away system.

Insurance won't pay for unnecessary procedures... The procedures that are covered are in a locked in rate. We get quotes and contracts for say the price of a MRI or a CT Scan. Each hospital don't pay the same.

So, although there is some run away bills now, I don't think it would get any worse or better with a SM system.

The biggest thing I see wrong with billing now is the number of bills you get when you go to the hospital. Each group has a bill, then each department, then the hospital, ER Docs are separate as are the EMT's.... I think it would be cheaper if they simplfied it... Get one bill from the hospital.. Then after the hospital is paid, they can in turn pay whoever is owed.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Yes; but this is open-ended as to whether the govt. buys every private hospital or private health care provider, and to whether to govt. will pick up all costs or just above a certain level for services and/or below a certain family income for patients.

If you need to have a model in mind, think of it as similar to 1970, when passenger rail service had become unprofitable for the railroads, so the fed.govt. bought up all (except for some short lines) the passenger cars, engines, maintenance equip., et al, from the railroads used only for passenger service and created Amtrak, a federal not-for-profit corporation.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Incidentally, on the Beverly Hillbillies a few nights ago on TVLand, the Clampetts went to England and "Dr. " Granny intended to doctor a cousin believed to be fargone, but actually was deceased ["What decease has he got?" said Granny; "I can cure anything."] Then she was told they had "socialized medicine" in England, and she replied "Well, that's a fine thing-- cousin Marcus is dyin', and these English doctors are out socializing!" :laugh:

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

Incidentally, on the Beverly Hillbillies a few nights ago on TVLand, the Clampetts went to England and "Dr. " Granny intended to doctor a cousin believed to be fargone, but actually was deceased ["What decease has he got?" said Granny; "I can cure anything."] Then she was told they had "socialized medicine" in England, and she replied "Well, that's a fine thing-- cousin Marcus is dyin', and these English doctors are out socializing!" :laugh:

Maybe that's what we have to look forward to if we go that direction.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Alcott! I was going to ask if "socialized medicine" meant the same as our National Health Service, where heralth care is paid for through taxation, not through the health insurance of individual patients.

ExpandCollapse

Active Member

Good physicians would probably opt out of socialized medicine and only accept private insurance.

Already some physicians are choosing to limit the patients they accept into their practices.
Those that can pay their fee get their special service and care.

The great benefit of socialized medicine is the availability of limited, mediocre health care to the poor and middle class.

Rob

Click to expand...

We have plenty of good doctors, nurses, surgeons, etc. in our National Health Service, which I am still assuming is the sort of thing that is meant by the term "socialized medicine". I certainly wouldn't call our health care "mediocre", though I am sure every country's health care system has room for improvement.

ExpandCollapse

Banned

I've talked to people in England who say they have to wait months to see a specialist.
I also worked in billing. I found Medicare was very stingy about paying some bills. It was sometimes very difficult to assure them all the procedures we were doing was absolutely necessary. Medicaid was even worse.
The doctors I knew didn't do any unnecessary procedures, because 1) they probably wouldn't get paid for it by the patient's insurance, and 2) they would get a huge fine if caught. It wasn't worth the gamble. Now, if patient's are paying out of pocket, that's a diffenernt story. Not only do the patients not have the resources to keep their doctor's in check, but they also pay full price for medical care. Medicare and other insurances pay about 80%.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

We have plenty of good doctors, nurses, surgeons, etc. in our National Health Service, which I am still assuming is the sort of thing that is meant by the term "socialized medicine". I certainly wouldn't call our health care "mediocre", though I am sure every country's health care system has room for improvement.

Click to expand...

Would you say that you are mostly satisfied with NHS?

I ask because I have a suspicion that most of these "socialized medicine is awful" arguments don't come from those who actually experience it on a daily basis.

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!